Thursday, January 17, 2008

I don't even have the words to describe the ridiculousness of this cover that the publication Golfweek has decided to publish for the week of January 19th. Just look for yourself (From The Sporting Blog)

No that's not a photoshop....that's the real cover. Someone said this earlier in the comments of the Bucky Waters post (and it couldn't be more true) that it seems like we get one or two of these PC items a day now. This one just blows my mind. What in your right mind would let you publish something like that? Well here's Golfweek Editor Dave Seanor's response.....

"Was it an arresting image? Yes, it was. We chose it because it was an image we thought would draw attention to an issue we thought deserved some intelligent dialogue. If you're going to do this story on the cover, you don't have many choices. It's Kelly Tilghman's face or a noose."

Clearly those were your ONLY choices. Not a picture of Tiger Woods. No why you want to do that and turn your respected publication into a tabloid?

8
Comments:

"It's Kelly Tilghman's face or a noose." Really thats it? Why not a picture of Tiger Woods, or a KKK rally, or Tiger Woods head INSIDE the noose...now that would have made for some interesting and intelligent dialogue. Morons.

What more can be done? The comment was made, Tilghman was suspended, and Woods was understanding about the whole mess.

I must admit, I'm curious about the contents of this article. Is "Golfweek" gonna try to bring down Golf Channel? Are they attempting to complete the destruction of Kelly Tilghman's career? Why do I care? So many questions, so few answers.

And on a side note: "wriggle" is a really funny sounding word. I know it's legit, but still - strange word, when you think about it.

I'm not condoning the cover, but remember what started this: Kelly Tilghman's comment in which she joked that young golfers should "lynch" Tiger Woods. Obviously, Golfweek thought that it was the best way to illustrate the story. Unfortunately, it bombed - big time.

But the question remains: if the noose is out of bounds, and a picture of Tilghman is insufficient, then what should have been pictured instead?